Answers for Judge Jones

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In my previous post I posed two questions for Judge Jones. The answers to the second question are A, B and C. That is, (A) Evolutionary theory incorporates religious premises, (B) Proponents of evolutionary theory are religious people and (C) Evolutionary theory mandates certain types of solutions.

Continue reading here.

Comments

Learned Hand, ------"Leading questions are explicitly permissible on cross examination. Also when the witness is hostile. Behe was a hostile witness being cross examined. See Federal Rule of Evidence 611." Hostile how? See Federal Rule of Evidence 610 "Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness' credibility is impaired or enhanced." 610 is the crux of the matter, and Behe's religious beliefs or opinions, or lack thereof, were not admissible, though admitted. Clive Hayden_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT}

Clive (quoting David Kellogg): ”As for loaded questions: It’s called a cross-examination. I would have thought with all you know about the law (cough cough) you would understand when such things are acceptable.” You’re joking right? “Leading the witness” is never acceptable. You're joking, right? Leading questions are explicitly permissible on cross examination. Also when the witness is hostile. Behe was a hostile witness being cross examined. See Federal Rule of Evidence 611.Learned Hand_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT}

Lamarck, I'm not really sure why you're going to another web site to tell you what the opinion says, or why you're asking me to point out where it talks about Lemon. You really should just read it, start to finish; it's not something you'll really comprehend if you try to tackle it just by reading little bits from third parties. The discussion you describe on skeptiwiki sounds more or less accurate, but it's not quite right. While the court did find that the policy violated the effect prong, it did so in one little paragraph at the very end of the opinion. The vast bulk of the piece is devoted to the endorsement and purpose tests. The court discusses what precedent applies from about page 10 to about page 15, and the rest of the opinion (after the fact section) is an analysis. The problem with not reading the opinion is that you get into errors like this: Religion is needed to believe ID. Where does that come from? I don't remember anything like that from the opinion, nor do I see how it can be backed out of the court's reasoning. If that were the court's rationale, the defendants could have won just by putting an atheist ID believer on the stand. (I concede, arguendo, that such exists.) I don't know to "refute" you on this point. You're going to have to point me to some part of the opinion that supports your characterization of the court's reasoning. Your two points are off target. It's more accurate to say that: 1. The court found that an objective observer would find that ID was religious. This is the endorsement test. An objective observer would, inter alia, see that ID came from creationism, is promoted almost exclusively by religious people with religious motives, and is promoted by people who admit that it is a religious theory. Accordingly, under Lynch, using government money to teach ID would be a government endorsement of religion. The court actually finds that the defendants failed this test without getting into whether ID is science. It addresses that question (a) because the parties asked it to, and (b) because it's a possible escape for the defendants. If ID was science, then the above analysis would get turned on its head. The court concludes that ID is not science, then moves on to the first prong of the Lemon test. 2. The court found that teaching ID has no secular purpose. This is the first Lemon test. (The other two get short shrift in the analysis, because once the defendants lost under endorsement and purpose, they lose the case. This, again, is mandated by binding precedent.) This actually turned more on what the school board did than ID itself. The board said it had a secular purpose, in that ID is good science, but: the Board took none of the steps that school officials would take if these stated goals had truly been their objective. The Board consulted no scientific materials. The Board contacted no scientists or scientific organizations. The Board failed to consider the views of the District’s science teachers. The Board relied solely on legal advice from two organizations with demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions, the Discovery Institute and the TMLC. Moreover, Defendants’ asserted secular purpose of improving science education is belied by the fact that most if not all of the Board members who voted in favor of the biology curriculum change conceded that they still do not know, nor have they ever known, precisely what ID is. To assert a secular purpose against this backdrop is ludicrous. Page 131. So because ID in inextricably tied to religion, it fails the endorsement test. (It would pass if it were science, probably. There's some doubt, but the court didn't need to go there, because it found ID isn't science.) And because the school board didn't have a secular purpose, it failed the purpose test. (And the implication is that, because ID isn't science, the board couldn't have had a secular purpose; that, too, would have changed if ID was science.) You go on to say, See the difference. ID isn’t science and can never get a schools beachhead, BECAUSE of the intentions of IDer’s and HISTORY of creationism, and nothing else. This could ALWAYS be used as the reasoning. No, this is wrong. It's connected to whether ID is science. ID could extract itself from its roots in creationism if its advocates treated it like a real science - publishing in journals, conducting experiments, etc. Compare ID to chemistry; both have roots in supernaturalism, but chemistry went on to behave like a science, and cut those roots. ID hasn't. It may or may not, but the courts will (probably) not find that it has until it really acts like a secular science. And Jones’ precedents WERE used in another case in California. Really? What case? I hadn't heard. I'd like to see it. Kitzmiller wasn't binding there. It can't be. District court cases are only binding (to a certain extent) in the district where they're decided. Even then, district judges can evade each others' precedent. A judge in California could never be bound by Kitzmiller. He could be persuaded by its reasoning, but he's free to disregard it if he wants. I realize I’m sticking my neck out, not having access to the his full decision, but I’ll provide a different argument if necessary. Huh? How could you not have access to the decision? It's all over the internet. Just google "Kitzmiller." It's linked from Wikipedia, too. You argue that the supreme court and Jefferson bans science pointing towards intelligent causation? Please elaborate, you didn’t. The supreme court bans government endorsement of religion, and government actions that fail the lemon tests. "Science" that points towards religious intelligent causation fails those tests, and ID, as it exists today, is inextricably bound up in its religious nature. If ID grew into a secular science, it would not fail the first amendment tests. You led me to believe it’s a “snap” decision, and later corrected yourself on it, because it’s not at all a snap decision for lower courts according to wiki’s stuff on Lemon. Sorry if I was unclear. The proper application of a case as complicated as Lemon can, indeed, be difficult. What Jones couldn't have done, and what would have been an easy reversal, is to just ignore Lemon because it relies on a vision of the separation of church and state that he finds inappropriate. I thought that's what you were saying he should have done; apologies if I misunderstood.Learned Hand_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand, ------"Although I suspect that if you were an ID critic, Clive would have deleted your comments and/or banned you, as he appears to have done with JayM." Your suspicion is wrong.Clive Hayden_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg, ------"As for loaded questions: It’s called a cross-examination. I would have thought with all you know about the law (cough cough) you would understand when such things are acceptable." You're joking right? "Leading the witness" is never acceptable.Clive Hayden_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT}

StephenB, ------"Everything about his words were twisted by the ACLU and Judge Jones. But they can’t twist those words in front of me and neither can you." That's right, and no amount of (cough cough) will suffice from David to that end.Clive Hayden_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand, Re: Jefferson I'm surprised you took this strong stance here. You argue that the supreme court and Jefferson bans science pointing towards intelligent causation? Please elaborate, you didn't. You instead went on to tell me about how lower circuits are bound by the lemon law, a non-related issue. The lemon law is too amorphous, open to either side's viewpoint. It's unnecessary from what I see. It doesn't tackle Jefferson head on as we're trying to do. You led me to believe it's a "snap" decision, and later corrected yourself on it, because it's not at all a snap decision for lower courts according to wiki's stuff on Lemon. Unless you had some other Supreme court ruling in mind?lamarck_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand, I see on skepticwiki that Jones found points one and two of the lemon test go against ID in schools. I hope you can get back to me with the judges reasoning, if you think it's necessary for me to make my case. In the meantime, here's this to chew on from the skepticwiki: "He further found that teaching ID has no secular purpose, in part becase "ID is [not] Science," because "ID and Teaching about 'Gaps' and 'Problems' in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism," and that as a result, both an objective Dover student and an objective Dover citizen "would percieve Defendants' Conduct to be an Endorsement of Religion." So here we see the two parts which we're addressing. I'm not counting the Jefferson question, I'll tackle that separately: 1. ID is not science. 2. Religion is needed to believe ID. Point 2 is at stake. According to this, ID isn't allowed in schools because of IT'S HISTORY AND IT'S ADHERENTS INTENT. Not because you need religion to believe in ID. If the judge expands on his opinion into this territory, then refute me, if not cede the point. So if this is the sole reasoning, then my point still stands: "This ruling in effect states that in the future were ID to have an even better case for a designer, it still wouldn’t be allowed in schools, because science class cannot infer a designer even if it becomes apparent through science that there is one." You: "No, it states that you can only make the case for a designer with scientific arguments, and only if the purpose and effect of the lesson plan doesn’t violate the Lemon test. You could, in fact, teach ID so long as it didn’t violate the Lemon test." It looks like you are incorrect. You can't make a case for design in schools ever, even if all scientists stand shoulder to shoulder in agreement. Because the unique and significant precedent which this judge created, was that it matters that ID has a religious strategy in mind, and ID derives from earlier creationist arguments. See the difference. ID isn't science and can never get a schools beachhead, BECAUSE of the intentions of IDer's and HISTORY of creationism, and nothing else. This could ALWAYS be used as the reasoning. And Jones' precedents WERE used in another case in California. I realize I'm sticking my neck out, not having access to the his full decision, but I'll provide a different argument if necessary.lamarck_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT}

---feebish: "Leave it to Stephen B to conclusively prove that Darwinism is God friendly. I’m not sure under which God this is the case, but that just shows the limitations of my own quaint beliefs." I was talking about science, not science fiction.StephenB_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

----David: "As for loaded questions: It’s called a cross-examination. I would have thought with all you know about the law (cough cough) you would understand when such things are acceptable." I have broken his answer down and explained exactly what Behe was saying and why. Everything about his answer is in order, and it makes perfect sense. Behe said nothing incriminating at the trial and he wrote nothing incriminating outside the trial. Everything about his words were twisted by the ACLU and Judge Jones. But they can't twist those words in front of me and neither can you.StephenB_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT}

It seems that you linked to several, and it may well be that one of them was not anti-ID. All I remember is that I continued to ask for your analysis and you kept referring me to someone else’s.
False. I always and only linked to Johnson's essay directly. I did point out that others responded to this essay, but those were links you could get to from Johnson's essay. This essay was at ARN, a pro-ID site. You repeatedly and falsely said I linked to an anti-ID site even after correction.David Kellogg_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT}

539 StephenB 06/27/2009 9:09 pm "First, the question about ID being God friendly is a loaded question. Every scientific theory in the history of mankind has been God friendly. The theory of relativity is God friendly, the second law of thermodynamics is God friendly, even Quantum Mechanics is God friendly. How could a scientific theory be God –unfriendly? It is a monumentally stupid question." Leave it to Stephen B to conclusively prove that Darwinism is God friendly. I'm not sure under which God this is the case, but that just shows the limitations of my own quaint beliefs. Perhaps what he says is true under a new-agey type of God which can act however it wants, and hasn't written a book detailing precisely how He acted and how long it took.feebish_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT}

----David: "StephenB, could you acknowledge (in response to 529) that I linked directly to Johnson and not to an anti-ID interpretation of Johnson, as you have repeatedly charged?" I don't remember. However, I will acknowedge that it is possible. It seems that you linked to several, and it may well be that one of them was not anti-ID. All I remember is that I continued to ask for your analysis and you kept referring me to someone else's.StephenB_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT}

----David: "I keep doing StephenB’s homework for him, but what thanks do I get? Behe squirming on the stand is tranformed into an exemplary performance." I did all the analysis for you. What else do you want. The man gave a straight answer to a straight question. Sadly, you just can't handle the truth.StephenB_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand, Before I answer you, do you have a link to the section of Jones' decision going over the lemon test? I'd like to see the context. It's confusing the issue for me. It seems the lemon test doesn't add or take away from my stated understanding of church and state separation, and how it relates to the dover case. When we argue the lemon test, it seems we're arguing exactly what we've been arguing in this thread. Maybe the three point clarification was necessary for a special aspect of a different case but unnecessary for Dover, I just have to see the reasoning.lamarck_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT}

It should be “drivel.” Thank you for the correction.jerry_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

"Vividblue, I will explain Johnson’s equivocation when I get the time. I have a life though.)" No problem. However I am interested in hearing your response to my other questions in 538. Vividvividbleau_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

I keep doing StephenB's homework for him, but what thanks do I get? :-) Behe squirming on the stand is tranformed into an exemplary performance. As for loaded questions: It's called a cross-examination. I would have thought with all you know about the law (cough cough) you would understand when such things are acceptable. In related news, I guess an admission of error on the Johnson link would be too much to ask. (Vividblue, I will explain Johnson's equivocation when I get the time. I have a life though.)David Kellogg_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: “wonder if StephenB might be thinking of this. This is the closest to his scenario he offers. There was a time (October 18, PM) when the plaintiff’s attorney quoted Dr. Behe’s article “Reply to my Critics” — the very sentence StephenB says Judge Jones distorted. The attorney asks: “It’s a God friendly theory, isn’t it, Professor Behe?” As a public service, I will sort this out for our readers. Behe responds: -----“A Let me respond in a couple of ways to that. First, let me clarify for context that this is a journal called Biology and Philosophy. So not only am I speaking about scientific matters here, but I’m also talking about nonscientific matters here in an academic forum. Academics embraces more than just science. This is an academic forum which also embraces philosophy, and so I addressed philosophical issues as well.” The Journal is about biology AND philosophy, which means that the discussion will transcend science. -----“And again, my statement as written is certainly correct. And it’s happened time — many times in science, and, again, I’ll just refer back to John Maddox’s article Down With the Big Bang. He didn’t like the Big Bang theory. And it wasn t because the data were inconsistent with it, it’s because it was philosophically unacceptable. Walter Nernst hated the idea of a beginning to the universe. It was unscientific. So — and other people have said similar things.” Scientific theories often have religious implications. The big bang is a good example. When atheists first discovered that the universe began in time, they became mad as hell because is suggested a first cause. That is what it means for a scientific theory to have philosophical and theological implications. Some people were even imprudent enough to think that the cause might have been a personal creator. Hide the kids. Nevertheless, it was solely a scientific theory because it did nothing more than analyze the patterns in nature. ----“So it’s clearly true that people make decisions even about a scientific theory, based not only on the science itself, but what they perceive as other ramifications of the theory.” Even though cosmology is solely scientific and has nothing to do with religion, when people hear that the universe measures about 13.7 Billion light years and contains hundreds of billions of galaxies, each of which contain hundreds of billions of stars, they tend to suspect that some super intelligence just may have been responsible. That doesn't mean that cosmology is religious; it means that it can have religious implications. ----But I argue, I’ve argued a number of places, that it’s the proper role of a scientist to leave aside those other considerations as much as possible and focus simply on the scientific data. When you are doing science, you should keep your personal religious views out of it. ------David: “So. First he tries to disavow the importance of having written that — it’s not science, he says. But then he says it is science, just like the Big Bang. People take these things into account all the time. And then he says scientists shouldn’t do that.” He explained that he was writing in a journal that deals with subjects which transcend science. Then, he very patiently and cogently explains the difference between a scientific theory and its philosophical implications. -----It’s hard to fathom why Judge Jones didn’t find him credible. First, the question about ID being God friendly is a loaded question. Every scientific theory in the history of mankind has been God friendly. The theory of relativity is God friendly, the second law of thermodynamics is God friendly, even Quantum Mechanics is God friendly. How could a scientific theory be God –unfriendly? It is a monumentally stupid question. Second, Behe made the obvious point. Science is science and philosophy is philosophy. In a journal that deals with both science and philosophy, the subject matter will transcend science. . Clearly, somebody was not listening---and clearly, somebody is not thinking now. Also, as I showed earlier, Behe explained other places that creationism has nothing to do with intelligent design. Indeed, I posted a quick history on this site the other day, showing how each has a pedigree that goes back two-thousand years. Naturally, Judge Jones was clueless on the matter. The issue is just as Behe framed it. A scientific theory is not the same as its philosophical implications. It really isn't very hard.StephenB_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

R0b (#188) wrote: "He (Judge Jones) obviously sees belief in ID as heavily dependent on religious belief, which I think accords with statistics..." The backers of the movie "Expelled" obviously understood this well. That's why they showed "Expelled" in lots of religious venues - no actual science venues - before its official release.PaulBurnett_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

"it’s not science, he says" What does he say is not science? "But then he says it IS science, just like the Big Bang." What is the "IS" that you are referring to? "Questions: Vivid, in what thread did the Johnson issue originally arise? I think there is more context there for my response, but I forget where it happened." Maybe Stephen would know. For my purposes you can start by showing "that he equivocates on the meaning of “naturalism.” Vivid Vividvividbleau_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Questions: Vivid, in what thread did the Johnson issue originally arise? I think there is more context there for my response, but I forget where it happened. StephenB, could you acknowledge (in response to 529) that I linked directly to Johnson and not to an anti-ID interpretation of Johnson, as you have repeatedly charged?David Kellogg_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

StephenB, if that's the moment you're referring to (it's hard to know, because they have only a vague family resemblance) I'll happily stipulate that that happened. It's quite fascinating to read Behe's discomfort with his own words.David Kellogg_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

I wonder if StephenB might be thinking of this. This is the closest to his scenario he offers. There was a time (October 18, PM) when the plaintiff's attorney quoted Dr. Behe's article "Reply to my Critics" -- the very sentence StephenB says Judge Jones distorted. The attorney asks: "It's a God friendly theory, isn't it, Professor Behe?" Dr. Behe responds:
A Let me respond in a couple of ways to that. First, let me clarify for context that this is a journal called Biology and Philosophy. So not only am I speaking about scientific matters here, but I'm also talking about nonscientific matters here in an academic forum. Academics embraces more than just science. This is an academic forum which also embraces philosophy, and so I addressed philosophical issues as well. And again, my statement as written is certainly correct. And it's happened time -- many times in science, and, again, I'll just refer back to John Maddox's article Down With the Big Bang. He didn't like the Big Bang theory. And it wasn t because the data were inconsistent with it, it's because it was philosophically unacceptable. Walter Nernst hated the idea of a beginning to the universe. It was unscientific. So -- and other people have said similar things. So it's clearly true that people make decisions even about a scientific theory, based not only on the science itself, but what they perceive as other ramifications of the theory. But I argue, I've argued a number of places, that it's the proper role of a scientist to leave aside those other considerations as much as possible and focus simply on the scientific data.
So. First he tries to disavow the importance of having written that -- it's not science, he says. But then he says it is science, just like the Big Bang. People take these things into account all the time. And then he says scientists shouldn't do that. It's hard to fathom why Judge Jones didn't find him credible.David Kellogg_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

----Learned Hand: "Do you really not see why it’s misleading to put quotation marks around your interpretation of someone else’s words?" Yes, I do. And the offense is in direct proportion to the extent to which the meaning is distorted. ----"It’s one thing if the reader can tell from the context that you’re not really quoting. But that doesn’t describe your comments, in which you give every appearance of literally quoting the opinion, when in fact you’re only giving your interpretation the opinion." In this case, I agree that leaving out the word "root" was a small error that should be corrected. ----"It cuts out a stage of the argument in which you’d otherwise have to defend your interpretation against those who might otherwise think that you’re misreading the document, because it leads them to believe that you’re merely quoting from>" If only you could come to understand that a sitting judge should be held to a standard much higher than that. Also, the overall desire to know the truth surpasses everything else. Do you, in fact, desire to acknowledge the truth. It is not our side who has misread this case. We have not even begun to list the number of ways that Michael Behe explained the difference between creationism and intelligent design. Scott Andrews listed several, but there are many more. In fact, they are all over the place. Just because we haven’t talked about them doesn’t mean they are not there. It is much easier to make me the issue. On Oct 18, 2005 at the 9:00 a.m. session, Michael Behe was asked a number of questions on the difference between creationism [understood as creation science] and ID. Already, we can tell that Judge Jones and everyone else knows that a creationist is someone who begins with Biblical belief and reasons forward from faith as opposed to ID which begins with observation and reasons backwards to design. Among other things, Behe was asked, “Is it [creationism] different from intelligent design?” Behe: “Yes, [creationism] is vastly 180 degrees different from intelligent design. Intelligent design focuses exclusively on the physical evidence. It relies totally on empirical observations about nature. It does not rely on any religious text. It does not rely on any such religious information.” He goes on to say that ID involves no religious commitment and that it does not associate itself with the book of Genesis. I could go on an on, but you get the drift. Yet, Judge Jones ruled that Michael Behe, and the rest of the ID community, cannot uncouple themselves from the roots [thank you] of creationism or religious antecedents? It’s ridiculous. It’s scandalous. It’s a travesty of justice. Yet, you seem not to care about that truth, which could not be more evident. You seem to care only about a rewritten version of one answer in Michael Behe’s article, in which the ACLU adds the words “depend on” in order to change the entire meaning of the text. You seem pleased with an activist judge who can’t wait to use that rewrite to put words in Behe’s mouth so that they can pretend that his entire testimony, all of which is confirmed by the statement above, was some kind of a misrepresentation of his own views---as if the man had not been crystal clear all along about exactly what he believes---as if he doesn’t even know his own thoughts. Yes, Judge Jones’ refused to believe the words that came out of Michael Behe’s own mouth, as if he had some secret agenda that he wanted to hide from the world---as of he was so stupid that he would confess that agenda part of the time and hide it part of the time. This is pure insanity. I have asked you several times how to get religion out of “irreducible complexity” or “specified complexity.” If ID is tied to creationist roots, someone should be able to answer that question. You have no answer because there is not answer. I have also asked you how ID can be faith based if atheists and agnostics can accept it. You have no answer for that one either. In the final analysis, your only reasoning consists in the statement that Judge Jones says so. That is not a rational answer. Also, I would ask out of courtesy to me, whether you think I deserve it or not, to please not speak to me about the so-called "expert" witnesses. If what they had to say about intelligent design made any sense, you would be able to summarize it in some kind of argument. I have asked many on that side of the aisle to answer the two questions that I asked of you. They could not answer them either. If your side has no rational answers, then maybe it doesn't have a rational position. You have alluded to the "Lemon test" several times, but I consider that standard unhelpful. Whoevever defines the word "excessive entanglement" decides everything. It is a totally arbitrary standard. The fact is that the state has no business intruding itself in religious matters at all. Yet, as I have pointed out several times, you seem to think that the process by which justice is served is more important that justice itself, as if a court automatically dispenses justice by going through that process. I can't identify with that kind of thinking. If you have no standard of justice from which to reason, it seems to me all you have left is to say "Amen" when any court decides on any issue.StephenB_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand, I do have to ask you one thing. How is it that you are scandalized that I left out the word “root,” in recalling Judge Jones’ decision, which made no substance difference in the meaning, yet you are perfectly at peace when Judge Jones added the words, “depend upon,” to Michael Behe’s words changing his life and the life of many others for the worse. The court did not set its interpretation of Behe's words in quotation marks. Consequently, the reader knows that the excerpt is not a direct quotation, and that he'll need to read the original text to decide whether that paraphrasing is accurate and fair. Do you really not see why it's misleading to put quotation marks around your interpretation of someone else's words? It's one thing if the reader can tell from the context that you're not really quoting. But that doesn't describe your comments, in which you give every appearance of literally quoting the opinion, when in fact you're only giving your interpretation the opinion. It cuts out a stage of the argument in which you'd otherwise have to defend your interpretation against those who might otherwise think that you're misreading the document, because it leads them to believe that you're merely quoting from it.Learned Hand_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

David "On a point of order, it’s not a slander to say that: even if I’m wrong, it’s not a slander. " You make a good point and I retract my use of the term "slander" Vividvividbleau_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Vivid, I've been waiting just as long for StephenB to provide evidence that he can read a legal decision. I suppose I'll have to go to the Johnson article to which I repeatedly linked and parse out my claim, which is that he equivocates on the meaning of "naturalism." On a point of order, it's not a slander to say that: even if I'm wrong, it's not a slander.David Kellogg_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

SB"Oh, go ahead, humor me. Don’t slink away for the sixth time. If I can take the heat for everything I write, surely you can take the heat for just one thing that you wrote, which in this case, is in urgent need of being defended." David I have been folllowing this thread for days and I have been waiting for you to respond to Stephens request to back up your slander regarding Phillip Johnson. As Stephen states he has asked you to do so by his count 6 times yet you have yet to respond.Please do so as I am also interested in you backing up your accusations. Vividvividbleau_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

StephenB, re: Johnson, you wrote:
That link was an INTERPRETATION of the quotes, not the quotes themselves.
No. The link to Johnson I provided in 519 is the same as the one I provided earlier. It goes directly to Johnson's article at an ID site. Keep saying otherwise when the facts are so easily checked and someone might think you were lying.David Kellogg_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply